Owen Smith
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I believe the bonus tracks on the SACD contain DVD-A watermarking. Frankly these Machine Head quad releases are a confusing mess.
They can't even agree what the original intent was.On the US quad (from a Q4), those wails start in the RR, then are joined by LR, and that's all. Nothing in fronts.
On the UK quad rip I from the 2003 SACD, --a rip which supposedly has a 'corrected' channel assignment, with the rear channels "swapped over to restore the original UK SQ mix configuration' -- they overlap in this order:
LR RF RR LF
an 'X' configuration. ( The RF and RR wails overlap very closely, but a spectral view shows the RF start before RR )
un-swapped, the overlapping wails would sound in this order
RR RF LR LF
a 'parallel' configuration
Part of the problem may be that they don't know either...who is 'they'?
Back in 1972 the quad mix was probably done on the cheap in a great hurry and mistakes were made.In my post, 'they' would be the source I got the rip from, who offered me both the straight rip from the SACD, and the supposedly 'corrected' version of it, made by swapping LR and RR channels.
I don't know what 'they' Midimagic refers to. I guess strictly original intent would be whatever is on the 1972 UK quad LP. But I find it hard to believe that anyone back then really favored snipping out part of Lazy
At least one source is telling me Peter Mew did the original 1972 quad mix for the UK release. Is that plausible?Back in 1972 the quad mix was probably done on the cheap in a great hurry and mistakes were made.
A great many 1970s quad mixes sound just like that to me too. They can be really welcome, revealing, interesting, etc at the same time. But many still sound unfinished. I include the revered Dark Side of the Moon with that - ahead of its time and accomplished as it is.
Guess I need to rock out Machine Head! Now I can't remember if my UK copy has reversed rears or not. I thought I liked the US quad mix better. Maybe that more recent 5.1 had fuller fidelity though? I thought one of the tracks was edited shorter in stereo vs the quad mix too.
Yes, only 3, not counting a possible variant of the UK mix on the German LP.I also believe there are a total of 3 surround mixes for this. Any differences beyond that are slight mastering differences. Still wish In Rock and Fireball had this fidelity!
I remember not really liking that 2001 remix. A lot of the circa early 2000s 5.1 remixes for DVDA have a frustrating mix of very professional fidelity but flat lifeless mixes IMHO. Some of the quads - even flawed, damaged, or unfinished, still run circles around them! (Sorry for the pun.)the true 5.1 from 2001 DVDA by Paul Klingberg is a different beast from both quad mixes. Too much reverb added for my ears, which for me detracts from 'fidelity' to the sound/feel of the stereo original, but I know it has its fans.
Yes, only 3, not counting a possible variant of the UK mix on the German LP.
This track calls out so hard for the quad/surround treatment and ends up being so disappointing. The synth coming in early like that is pretty glaring!PMFJI - The ARP synth prior to the drum solo section is opened "early", 2-3 seconds before the rhythm section has fully halted as it does with the stereo version. I've been wondering for 50 years why it was released this way. It's not the end of the world, but the original smooth segue was lost in the process.
Several years ago a group of us put quite a bit of effort into working out what the UK SACD mix is. One of us made a DVD-A that repeated one track from the US Q4, then the UK SACD, then the SQ vinyl decoded, followed by another track from the three sources, and the mixes were all different. After a while of puzzling it was me that realised the SACD rear swap, the DVD-A was re-created, and suddenly it all made sense. The SQ decode comparison is a little awkward because rear sounds aren't removed from the fronts so you're comparing mid right/left sounds in SQ with fully right/left sounds in SACD.The SACD copy of the UK quad has a choked lower-fi sound. This is the more dry mix of the 3. Serious choked sound on the cymbals and kind of anemic overall. I don't know what I think of the rears being reversed or not. I thought it matched the other mixes more out of the box. I can't point to a panning clue that convinces me one way or the other. My sense is to leave it as is but if someone with an encoded vinyl copy says that is reversed from this SACD... noted then. Lazy is edited shorter as mentioned.
Maybe the forthcoming Quadio release can use the US quad mix as well as the UK quad mix with fixed rear channels?The UK quad SACD has the rears swapped left/right, proven by comparing with a decode of the SQ LP.
That would be really great, definitely the complete edition if they do it.Maybe the forthcoming Quadio release can use the US quad mix as well as the UK quad mix with fixed rear channels?
Make it something really special?
That was talked about here by ForagingRhino: DIGITAL - Deep Purple - Machine Head (UK Quad Mix on the 2003 EMI SACD)Maybe the forthcoming Quadio release can use the US quad mix as well as the UK quad mix with fixed rear channels?
Make it something really special?
Enter your email address to join: